Should the Supreme Court's power of judicial review be strictly limited by a constitutional amendment?

In answering either question, clearly state your position (thesis) at the beginning of your post. Define important terms and explain your position fully. Consider pro and con arguments on both sides of your position and respond to the con arguments. Justify your position with facts and persuasive reasoning.

Rather Esoteric essay, actually. What should or should not be is seldom considered by arguments in our political country, it comes down to be an exercise of poltical power.

My thinking on the above, is how would the limits of judicial review be monitored, and by whom? the President? Congress? States? and who would enforce it.

Thesis: The power of judicial review wielded by the Supreme Court should not be strictly limited by a constitutional amendment.

To address this question, let's begin by defining the power of judicial review. Judicial review is the authority of the courts to interpret and declare the constitutionality of laws, acts, and governmental actions. In the United States, the Supreme Court has the ultimate power of judicial review, ensuring that the government's actions fall within the boundaries set in the Constitution.

Now, let's examine the arguments for and against strictly limiting the Supreme Court's power of judicial review.

Arguments in favor of limiting judicial review:
1. Overreach: Some argue that the Court has at times overstepped its boundaries by making policy decisions better left to the legislative branch. Stricter limitations on judicial review could curb this overreach.
2. Democratic accountability: Critics contend that unelected judges should not have the final say on constitutional matters, as it represents an undemocratic distribution of power.
3. Constitutional interpretation: Stricter limitations on judicial review could encourage narrower interpretations of the Constitution, adhering more closely to the original intent of the framers.

While these arguments may hold some validity, there are stronger reasons why the power of judicial review should not be strictly limited:

1. Safeguarding constitutional rights: The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in protecting individual rights and civil liberties. Judicial review ensures that laws passed by elected officials do not infringe upon the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
2. Checks and balances: Judicial review is an essential tool in the system of checks and balances. It prevents any one branch of government from dominating and potentially abusing its power.
3. Correcting legislative errors: In cases where laws are ambiguous or inconsistent with the Constitution, the Supreme Court's interpretation can rectify errors and provide clarity. Limiting judicial review could prevent the correction of legislative mistakes.
4. Evolving society: The Constitution is a living document intended to adapt to societal changes. Through judicial review, the Court can interpret the Constitution in a manner that aligns with the values and needs of contemporary society.

In response to the arguments in favor of limiting judicial review, it is important to remember that the Supreme Court operates as a non-partisan institution separate from the other branches of government. The justices are bound by their dedication to interpreting the Constitution, not advancing personal or political agendas. Democracy is not solely about majority rule; it also requires the protection of minority rights, which judicial review strives to uphold.

In conclusion, the power of judicial review should not be strictly limited by a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court's ability to interpret the Constitution and ensure governmental actions conform to its principles is an indispensable component of our democratic system. Judicial review maintains the balance between the branches of government, safeguards individual rights, and adapts the Constitution to the evolving needs of society.